Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 08:08 UTC

equinor / isar

Integration and Supervisory control of Autonomous Robots

PythonEPL-2.0★ 19 stars⑂ 45 forkssince Sep 2021View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

equinor/isar holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Exceptional

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met

Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps

Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable

Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended

Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas

At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution

Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

EquinorOrganization · verified domain

1,846 followers762 public repossince Dec 2010

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
PyPI	isar	2.7.0	3,536	204	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

98Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.9/36	Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 372 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	372
human_commit_share	0.97
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	49

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~4.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v2.7.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	4.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

48Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

34At Risk

How it's scored

20.4/60	Stars — 19 stars
13.7/25	Forks — 45 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	45
stars	19
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

57Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (EPL-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

59Moderate

How it's scored

47.3/80	Monthly downloads — 3,536 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	isar
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	3,536
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

89Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

72Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 32 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	32
top_contributor_share	0.256

Issue & PR responsiveness

91Excellent

How it's scored

41.5/42	Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
25.6/30	PR acceptance — 720/843 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 14/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

merged_prs	720
open_issues	5
closed_issues	373
prs_merged_7d	4
prs_decided_7d	5
prs_merged_30d	15
prs_decided_30d	17
issue_closed_ratio	0.987
closed_unmerged_prs	123
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

98Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
23.5/25	Owner reach — 1,846 followers of equinor
25/25	Track record — 762 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1,846
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	equinor
public_repos	762
account_age_days	5,787

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 204 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	isar
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 11 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

85Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	hacktoberfest
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

79Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

74Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5	Code-Review — Found 14/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
1.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	7.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	4
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	96
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 96 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

44Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.1/40	Legible commit history — 2 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.021
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black], [tool.isort])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.03

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/172 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	16,872
source_files_sampled	172
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

19GitHub stars

32contributors

372commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

100releases

3bus factor

5open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:isar@2.7.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 45 ⇿

0Stars

45Forks

83Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

Major 1Minor 12Patch 70

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10

7.4aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-10-21 08:07 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
8	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8	Code-Review	Found 14/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
3	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 28

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	alitra	`>=1.1.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	azure-identity	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	azure-storage-blob	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	backoff	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	click	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	dacite	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fastapi-azure-auth	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	fastapi	`>=0.121.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	dependency-injector	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	numpy	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	paho-mqtt	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic_settings	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pydantic	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	PyJWT	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dotenv	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	PyYAML	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	starlette	`>=0.49.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	transitions	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	uvicorn	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`==1.38.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	opentelemetry-instrumentation-fastapi	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pymysql	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`—`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psycopg	`>=3.3.6`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 96

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 28 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	alitra	`2.0.0`	direct
PyPI	azure-identity	`1.25.3`	direct
PyPI	azure-storage-blob	`12.30.1`	direct
PyPI	backoff	`2.2.1`	direct
PyPI	click	`8.5.0`	direct
PyPI	dacite	`1.9.2`	direct
PyPI	dependency-injector	`4.49.1`	direct
PyPI	fastapi	`0.141.1`	direct
PyPI	fastapi-azure-auth	`5.3.0`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.5.2`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-api	`1.38.0`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp	`1.38.0`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-instrumentation-fastapi	`0.59b0`	direct
PyPI	opentelemetry-sdk	`1.38.0`	direct
PyPI	paho-mqtt	`2.1.0`	direct
PyPI	psycopg	`3.3.6`	direct
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.5`	direct
PyPI	pydantic-settings	`2.15.0`	direct
PyPI	pyjwt	`2.15.0`	direct
PyPI	pymysql	`1.2.0`	direct
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.3`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	direct
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	direct
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	direct
PyPI	sqlalchemy	`2.0.52`	direct
PyPI	starlette	`1.6.0`	direct
PyPI	transitions	`0.9.3`	direct
PyPI	uvicorn	`0.52.4`	direct
PyPI	alembic	`1.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	asgiref	`3.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	azure-core	`1.41.0`	indirect
PyPI	black	`26.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	docker	`7.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	execnet	`2.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	googleapis-common-protos	`1.75.3`	indirect
PyPI	greenlet	`3.5.5`	indirect
PyPI	grpcio	`1.83.1`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore2	`2.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2	`2.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2-jsfetch	`1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.19`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	isodate	`0.7.2`	indirect
PyPI	isort	`9.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	mako	`1.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	msal	`1.38.0`	indirect
PyPI	msal-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-common	`1.38.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-grpc	`1.38.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-http	`1.38.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-instrumentation	`0.59b0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-instrumentation-asgi	`0.59b0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-proto	`1.38.0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-semantic-conventions	`0.59b0`	indirect
PyPI	opentelemetry-util-http	`0.59b0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.7`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`6.33.6`	indirect
PyPI	psycopg-binary	`3.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.5`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-xdist	`3.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytokens	`0.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32	`312`	indirect
PyPI	requests-mock	`1.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.6`	indirect
PyPI	scipy	`1.18.1`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	testcontainers	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.5`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	wrapt	`1.17.3`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 96 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect	high	2	`2026.10.19`
mako	`1.4.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`1.4.2`

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records